The Tragedy in Japan and Nuclear Power

I WOULD do a post on the actual disaster in Japan, but it would be a little late, and there are many, many better places to read about it. Instead, I am going to criticize media reporting. You may have noticed that for every report on the actual tragedy, there are two or three screaming "NUCLEAR MELTDOWN!!!" I can guarantee you, this will be turned into an anti-nuclear crusade, even if (like at Three Mile Island) nobody is actually harmed by the plants. A "meltdown," even if by some freak chance one happened, would not harm anyone except people stupid enought to be literally inside the plant itself. That's what happened with Chernobyl - the only people killed died INSIDE the plant, and nobody died from "fallout" - in fact, nobody was even harmed.

Now, one thing I've seen claimed is that uranium fuel rods are dangerous because they have such a long half-life. This is both true and a flat out lie. It IS true that uranium has an extremely long half-life, but that is what makes it SAFE, except in obscenely high amounts, by which I mean being literally surrounded by it. Half-life is the amount of time it takes for 50% of a radioactive compound to "decay" - that is, emit radiation and cease to be radioactive. When a compound emits a particle of radiation, it ceases to be that compound, and thus no longer emits radiation. Something with a short half-life, such as radon gas, is quite dangerous, because a LOT of radiation is emitted in a short time. On the other hand, if you take the same amount of uranium, it will take FAR longer to emit the same amount of radiation. So yes, it is radioactive longer, but it emits very little radiation.

Please, news outlets, stop with your ridiculous crusade against safe, clean, affordable power! In fact, stop taking tragedies and using them as an excuse to condemn those you disagree with.

Go, South Carolina!

Lightbulb tyrants, tremble in fear! There are some legislators that are actually trying to get some good accomplished.

---------------------------------------------------

SC State Reps Have More Than Their Heads Screwed on Properly
by Jerry McConnell





According to Robert Romano of NETRIGHTDAILY.com two State Representatives in South Carolina want to get their heads screwed on right by allowing the people of their state to be able to continue to screw incandescent light bulbs into the lighting fixtures in their homes in that state.

These two screwy, in the most commendable way, legislators Bill Sandifer and Dwight Loftis, have authored and submitted a bill that would allow for the manufacture and purchase of incandescent bulbs in South Carolina. As Romero points out, these bulbs are currently subject to a federal ban that begins to take effect in January, 2012, just a mere nine months from now.

NetRightDaily’s reporter Romano explained what motivated the two State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis as told by Bill Wilson, the President of Americans for Limited Government when he said they “are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use.”

“The basic concept of the bill” according to State Rep. Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, “is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent bulbs.”

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

“But how can the federal government ban light bulbs?’ asked Romano, “They are trying to use again as they have so often done, the Commerce Clause. But I have a real problem with Big Brother intruding in how I live in my home,” Sandifer declared.

Explaining what the bill does, Representative Loftis said “it provides for the option of an entity manufacturing these bulbs in South Carolina to be sold in South Carolina.”


Wilson explained, “since the bulbs would be made entirely in South Carolina and sold in South Carolina, the federal government has no power to regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.” Romano’s report went on saying there would be more hearings in the subcommittee before coming to a final vote in the full committee. Chairman Sandifer was hopeful for a full house approval of the bill.

After regaining control of Congress in 2006 a piece of legislation passed by the Congressional majority of Democrats in 2007 called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which requires that all general-purpose light bulbs be more energy efficient than the existing incandescent bulbs starting on January 1, 2012 on a graduated basis beginning with 100 watt bulbs and ending with 40 watt bulbs in 2014.

It seems like that legislation was enacted just this past year it is still so fresh in people’s minds along with the unpopularity of its requirements. Except for a few chronic worry-warts I know that would be happy to ban almost any activity we humans take for granted, just about everyone else I speak with would prefer to keep the old reliable bulb Thomas Edison brought to us over a century ago.

The “Greenies” as environmentalists are often known, might be happy with their coup of replacing incandescent with the compact fluorescent lamps but our modern day rival China is ecstatic over this new ruling, as they have gained the lion’s share of the market for CFLs as they are commonly known.

So the Democrats once again proved their leadership in moving jobs away from American citizens and blessing foreigners with their largesse, reminiscent of the job shift from American citizens to foreign illegal aliens for the sake of gaining more votes, illegal in many cases, right here at home.

So OK, maybe they’re better for us in terms of environmental issues; but much of the opposition to these bulbs do not agree with that assessment. And the cost factor is also being argued in some circles that the excessive extra cost can, in some instances, never be recovered through cheaper operating costs. Time will settle that issue.


But these new corkscrew looking bulbs may be MUCH more dangerous to our health and the environment as the heavy content of mercury poses long-term additional risks and the very costs of necessary burdensome methods of exact clean-up of broken bulbs is onerous, particularly indoors where nearly all of the breakage will be concentrated. Another time-will-tell issue. But can we wait to find out?

One more complaint with these bulbs is the inability to provide a dimmable bulb which is very popular in many households. It is believed that this will be worked out in due time; but as stated above, can we wait to find out?

Robert Romano furnished these closing remarks by Dwight Loftis, one of the South Carolina Representative authors of the bill who blasted the federal ban on incandescent light bulbs, saying, “On the one hand, the feds say we need to do something about cleaning up the environment, and on the other hand, they impose requirements that we use this particular light bulb that has hazards with the disposal of it.” The new fluorescent bulbs are laced with mercury, raising concerns over the costs of proper disposal and over mercury seepage back into the environment.

“All in all, it’s just something that the feds really I think have no business in regulating,” Loftis said, saying that the supposed cost savings from using the bulbs simply will not be there for consumers.”

I agree. Why in the world would we Americans want to mandate a foreign product of highly questionable merits, and of higher costs along with attendant loss of jobs going to other countries?

Are all those negatives worth seeing Democrats get more votes to perpetuate their terms in office? Good luck to the two South Carolina solons and may their zeal spread rapidly to other states if the Republicans in Congress can’t repeal this bad piece of legislation.

-------------------------------------------

What is this?! A sane statement by a politician? This is very, very good. If this passes, it will be VERY interesting to see how the Feds respond. Will they attempt to strike out at SC over lightbulbs? Or will they sit back and destroy their own credibility by being beaten by a State? I seriously hope it's the latter, simply because it's been ages since States' Rights have been effectively used to stop any government infringement.

Oh, one other thing. Hold me to this - unless it is literally impossible, I will make sure to post at least once a week on here. I am SO sorry for not keeping this blog updated with stuff on Egypt and the like.

(Late) Happy Birthday, Lincoln!

America's first dictator was born 202 years and one day ago! In his honor, let's take a look at the results of his reign.

His legacy includes introducing the police state and martial law to America, as well as the tradition of declaring war under false pretenses. Without him, we may have actually stuck to the Constitution, and later presidents would not have a hero to justify their illegal actions. In fact, without him, the Confederate States of America just might still be a free nation, and slavery would have been abolished peacefully, as in every other country in the world, without 600,000 soldiers and countless civilians dead, without razing entire towns to the ground, without depriving innocents of much-needed medicines and supplies. Let us not forget, Lincoln single-handedly introduced the concept of the powerful executive.

Where would we be had he not happened? Well, we'd be much freer, the government would be far more sane, we would still keep within the Constitution to some degree, and the racial tensions resulting from Reconstruction would have been dramatically mitigated by a peaceful abolition of slavery. Presidents would have had no Great Hero to justify their obscene power grabs. The world would be a horrifying place indeed.

The United Police States of Amerika

Nice. Superbowl 2011 gives us a gigantic show of force from our Benign and Almighty Protectors. Just read the article.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Robots, guns, horses highlight Super Bowl security demonstration
Parking lot A at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington was a bad guy's nightmare on Friday, as officers from 12 law enforcement agencies -- including the FBI, ATF and ICE -- showed off the equipment they will use to secure Cowboys Stadium on Super Bowl Sunday.

The event, billed as the Super Bowl XLV Joint Information Center Public Safety Media Day, drew everything from bomb dogs and robots to mounted patrol officers to haz-mat teams.

The coolest demonstration I saw was the Arlington Fire Department's bomb robot, which has a long official name but which I -- as a technology fan -- would like to call Awesome.

Arlington firefighters remotely helped the robot pick up a "suspicious backpack" and stuff it into a container that can withstand a pretty big bomb blast. (See short video below.)

The equipment will on site Super Bowl Sunday, just in case.

Special Agent Matthew Segedy, senior SWAT team leader for the Dallas field office of the FBI, had some high-powered weapons and sniper scopes on display. Segedy said FBI agents will be stationed inside Cowboys Stadium for the Super Bowl, in case of emergency.
He said agents from the Houston field office are helping out, just as Dallas agents helped out in 2004 when the Super Bowl was in Houston.

The Arlington Fire Department folks were also on site during the NBA All-Star Game at Cowboys Stadium and the World Series at Rangers Ballpark. (It's been a rather big year for sports in Arlington, huh?)

But Segedy said the FBI was not involved in those events because they were not at the same security threat level as a Super Bowl -- which is a Level 1 national security event.

--------------------------------------------------------------

And he calls it awesome. I call it creepy. The fact is, if a terrorist sneaks in with a bomb, all the snipers in the world won't do any good. In fact, come to think of it, what idiot would try to snipe an individual in such a crowded place?! Then there's the massive amounts of security personnel decked out like the United States' freaking Army. Personally, I'm not a football fan, but if I were, I sure wouldn't want to walk past a few rows of faceless paramilitary goons with riot shields and M-4s.

The Arizona Massacre

Has anyone else noticed anything REALLY odd about the reporting on it? Every single article I've read on the subject from a major news outlet makes no mention of the fact that at least two of the people who stopped the shooter were armed. They felt confident in going after him because they had their guns with them, and one opened fire. Why no mention of this fact?

Another issue - "right-wing rhetoric" is constantly blamed for this guy's rampage. That makes perfect sense, right? After all, he made videos about the gold standard! Of course, they were also completely incoherent ramblings that made no degree of sense, and there's the minor fact that most of those who knew him described him as left-wing. One of his favorite books is the Communist Manifesto, not exactly a right-wing staple. His target was a "blue-dog" Democrat who is opposed to gun regulation. BUT HE MADE VIDEOS IN FAVOR OF THE GOLD STANDARD!!! Well, I'm convinced. Who else here is willing to bet that even if he had never heard Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin he still would have gone ballistic? He was a deranged lunatic, and most of those who knew him KNEW that he was dangerous and violent.

Even better, they're now wanting to ban 33-round magazines for handguns. The fact is, he would have gone on a rampage ANYWAY, even with standard 10-round mags. It's called "reloading" - it actually doesn't take that long with a Glock. Speaking of which, sales of the Glock 19 have skyrocketed. Get 'em while they're available - and legal.

Some thoughts on WikiLeaks

I cannot believe that I haven't posted on this subject yet. We all know what the statists say - "WikiLeaks is a threat to national security! Julian Assange is a traitor!"

First of all, it is NOT a threat, in any way, to national security. The only thing that MIGHT be dangerous in some vague way are the documents listing "vital" locations across the world. They consist almost entirely of mines (palladium, cobalt, etc.) and undersea cables, with a few other locations that aren't in either category. My thoughts are:

#1: Just how do you expect terrorists to get to undersea cables?
#2: If terrorists thought strategically, most of these places would have been attacked already. Listing them isn't doing any damage.
#3: Terrorists DON'T think strategically. They want to kill as many people as possible, and visibly destroy as much as possible. Attacking a mine, no matter how important or how valuable, is not going to achieve the same effect on the public as bombing buildings, turning them into very visible ruins, which causes TERROR.

I'm also still curious as to how Assange could be a "traitor," considering that he's not a citizen of the United States.

Went shooting today

Thanks to our friend Landon (who can be seen prominently dissing the AK-47 in the comments of my previous posts), my dad and I had the opportunity to shoot the living daylights out of paper targets with a wide variety of weapons. I'm just going to run down the list and give my impressions of each one.

#1: 9mm Glock. Excellent, once I figured out how to hold it properly so that it doesn't jam after every shot. Fun to shoot.

#2: .357 Ruger revolver, 6-inch barrel. We tried this one with both .38 Special and .357 magnum rounds. Three words describe this thing: Simple and awesome. The magnum rounds just felt good to shoot, though the .38 Special rounds were extremely fun, as well.

#3: Mossberg tactical shotgun - not sure of the model: It's a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. Do I really need to say anything else?

#4: Double-barrel shotgun: There's not really a lot to say about it, except that I managed to screw up loading it.

#5: Romanian WASR-10 AK-47: The performance was absolutely astounding - the rifle fired every shot accurately and without fail, despite the cheap, low-quality ammo and magazines we used. A perfect assault rifle if ever there was one.

Okay, so that was a lie. It literally jammed every second or third shot, in the end becoming a makeshift bolt-action rifle that ejected every other bullet. It consistently failed in a number of ways, despite being in apparently good condition for an AK-47. I was baffled. Landon, on the spot, disassembled the gun and found that there was a teeny-tiny piece of metal sticking out. Sorry for the poor terminology, but I don't remember the term that was used. Anyway, he filed it off with his knife, and the last 6 shots went perfectly. I am going to look for an opportunity to shoot a higher-quality AK, as the Romanian WASR-10s are not especially well-made, being some of the cheapest on the market. It was fun when it worked, though.

#6: Mosin-Nagant: Aaahh, the original Soviet weapon. It has a nasty kick, but it's fun as heck to shoot. Bolt-action. I somehow managed to jam it, as well as scraping my hand 5 times with the bolt before realizing that I was doing it the wrong way.

#7: K98 Mauser: Moving on from Commies to Nazis. The Mosin had a nasty kick - this was worse, sounded like a cannon, and was even more awesome. I somehow managed to jam this bolt rifle as well, but not as badly. Didn't scrape my hand, either. If I'm not mistaken, the specific rifle we fired was made in 1944, but it worked splendidly when we used it.

#8: AR-15: Along with the M-4, the current weapon of choice for the US armed forces. A fine weapon in its own right, this particular rifle was, for lack of a better term, very fancy, having enough add-ons and features that it is, in fact, superior to the ARs issued to the US Army. It looks cool as heck, and is pretty scary, though not quite to the level of terrifying as the AK-47. Sorry, Landon. Humorously nicknamed the EBR - Evil Black Rifle. Had a slightly odd grip, but it was actually rather nice once I got used to it. Having actually FIRED it, it's earned some more respect from me.

#9: Ruger 10/22: Yeah, I know. Anticlimactic. But it was fun to shoot, and a nice, light, low-recoil breather after the shoulder-breaking Mauser, the rather jumpy AR-15, and the AK-47, the barrel of which was nearly flying after the first shot. The 10/22 also provided relief for our ears, which had nearly been split by the Mosin and Mauser, which I assure you are extremely loud, despite earplugs.

Altogether, it was a pretty awesome day, and I now have a little experience in the guns most hated by liberals - semi-auto handguns, AR-15s, and AK-47s. So thanks, Landon, for giving me the opportunity to try some real power rifles!